Thank you
Stephen Benson
Propmaker
Alberta Theatre Projects
bensonfreelance@gmail.com
http://steve-1975.deviantart.com/art/Prop-Cyanide-Bottle-110265584

I’m having a good chuckle here because I’ve eaten tens of thousands of apricot, apple, and peach seeds in my lifetime, and I’m perfectly healthy. I’m an Egyptian living in America, but back home we incorporate apricot kernels into our diet by roasting, grinding into other foods, and eating them whole. We’ve been doing this for hundreds of years. Now I’m not saying that apricot seeds are a miracle cure, but I think you’re completely wrong in saying that they are patently dangerous. Although I would add that consuming too much of anything is not a good idea; indeed, I’ve heard reports of people dieing from drinking too much water. Furthermore, the cyanide element in apricot kernels is not dangerous because it is found in many other foods such as black berries, garbanzo beans, sprouts, etc. etc. In other words it’s not the “free” cyanide compound that is lethal to the body. Even vitamin b12 contains cyanide, which is obviously not dangerous to consume.

Well said, that man!

The reference you cite actually shows precisely what I already said, i.e. that cyanide kills cells. Some cells are more susceptible than others, but any cells that use oxygen will die if you give ‘em enough cyanide for long enough, since cyanide stops them using oxygen.

What the guy in the Telegraph story is doing is trying to “target” a toxin-producing enzyme (here one that processes the cyanide-containing plant chemical into cyanide) to generate a very high concentration of cyanide “locally” in one bit of the body – namely the tumour. The targetting is done using a fancy tumour-cell-seeking monoclonal antibody linked to the enzyme.

The use of the cyanogenic glucoside in this experiment doesn’t contradict what I said before. Many cancer cells (especially in solid tumours) are relatively less susceptible to cyanide than other (normal) cells. But, if you can make sure that a particular cell sees, say, 100 times as much cyanide as any other cell (which is what the targetting is designed to do, see above) , that can generate selective local cell killing, whether the cells are particularly susceptible to cyanide or not.

Let’s take an analogy. Imagine, if you like, that you are a near-teetotaller, while I am a seasoned drinker and can put away three or four times what you can. Your “susceptibility” to alcohol is greater than mine, and if we both drink three glasses of wine in the bar after work, likely I will be merry, while you will get sick and fall over.

However… if we can fix it so that you drink two small glasses of wine over the course of the evening, while I have to drink three whole bottles of whisky, I will be the one dying of acute alcohol poisoning, greater tolerance or no. And indeed, the fact that three bottles of scotch killed me will not tell you anything about whether you or I was more alcohol tolerant to start with.

As an aside, antibody targetting using the antibody to recognise the tumour cell and deliver the “toxic payload” has been tried in various ways. All require intravenous infusion, all are experimental as far as I know, and all would cost £££ / $$$ since the antibodies cost thousands of £££ /$$$ to produce. And the key thing is the antibody that does the targetting, not the particular toxin.

Needless to say, just chewing apricot kernels, or taking laetrile, would do no “targeting” of the cyanide at all. All of your cells would be seeing the stuff as it percolated around in your body fluids.

Anyway, hopefully this makes clear why the particular story you cite is irrelevant to the scientific argument in my earlier post.

Regarding “far from humble” – is it arrogant to believe, based on 30 years of scientific training and work, that one knows and understands much more about something (here cell biology, metabolism, and cell killing) than someone without the background/experience? If so , then I guess I will have to plead to un-humbleness. Others might call it insight.

Turning it the other way around, scientists and doctors commonly regard the many Alt.Med Google-PhD experts as demonstrating what one could shorthand as “The Arrogance of Ignorance”.

trust me – I’m a scientist…

Ah, well… I guess that proves it then, since scientists always agree on one another’s opinions.

Killing Cancer With Cyanide

And if I were you, I’d avoid the apricot kernels too. While I used to mix up lots of cyanide solutions, I never felt the slightest urge to try the stuff, and nor should anyone else IMHO.

Clearly, your opinions are far from humble.

Now, many tumours are actually unusually dependent on ANAEROBIC metabolism, not oxidative. Solid tumours in particular often don’t have terribly wonderful blood flow, and the cells in such tumours are to some extent “adapted” to the low-oxygen conditions. Indeed, there are even people who think that one of the reasons some tumour cells are hard to kill with chemotherapy agents – something that is the bane of many cancer treatments – is that the cancer cells have poorly developed oxidative metabolic pathways, which pathways play a part in drug-induced cell killing.

So what is the point of this here? Well, the point is that cyanide, which poisons oxidative metabolism, will act on pretty much ALL the cells in your body but will be most effective on the most “oxidative ” cells (like your normal brain and heart cells}. But NOT the cancer cells. Low oxygen tolerant cells (like many tumours) can be expected to be relatively resistant to cyanide.

There is thus zero plausible scientific rationale for Laetrile (and cyanides derived from it) “targetting” cancer cells. On the contrary, they would be the last cells you would expect to be affected.

So: no plausible scientific basis; no supportive evidence; 40 years as a watchword for quackery. Hmmm.

In other words, don’t touch Laetrile with a bargepole.

And if I were you, I’d avoid the apricot kernels too. While I used to mix up lots of cyanide solutions, I never felt the slightest urge to try the stuff, and nor should anyone else IMHO.